Lean & AgileEnterprise Frameworks

For Managing Large U.S. Gov’tCloud Computing Projects

Dr. David F. Rico, PMP, CSEP, ACP, CSM, SAFeTwitter: @dr_david_f_rico

Website: http://www.davidfrico.comLinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfrico

Agile Capabilities: http://davidfrico.com/rico-capability-agile.pdfAgile Resources: http://www.davidfrico.com/daves-agile-resources.htm

Agile Cheat Sheet: http://davidfrico.com/key-agile-theories-ideas-and-principles.pdf

Author BACKGROUND Gov’t contractor with 32+ years of IT experience B.S. Comp. Sci., M.S. Soft. Eng., & D.M. Info. Sys. Large gov’t projects in U.S., Far/Mid-East, & Europe

2

Career systems & software engineering methodologist Lean-Agile, Six Sigma, CMMI, ISO 9001, DoD 5000NASA, USAF, Navy, Army, DISA, & DARPA projects Published seven books & numerous journal articles Intn’l keynote speaker, 125+ talks to 12,000 people Specializes in metrics, models, & cost engineeringCloud Computing, SOA, Web Services, FOSS, etc. Adjunct at five Washington, DC-area universities

Lean & Agile FRAMEWORK? Frame-work (frām'wûrk') A support structure, skeletal

enclosure, or scaffolding platform; Hypothetical model A multi-tiered framework for using lean & agile methods

at the enterprise, portfolio, program, & project levels An approach embracing values and principles of lean

thinking, product development flow, & agile methods Adaptable framework for collaboration, prioritizing

work, iterative development, & responding to change Tools for agile scaling, rigorous and disciplined planning

& architecture, and a sharp focus on product quality Maximizes BUSINESS VALUE of organizations, programs,

& projects with lean-agile values, principles, & practicesLeffingwell, D. (2011). Agile software requirements: Lean requirements practices for teams, programs, and the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

3

How do Lean & Agile INTERSECT?

4

Agile is naturally lean and based on small batches Agile directly supports six principles of lean thinking Agile may be converted to a continuous flow system

Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. New York, NY: Free Press.Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. New York, NY: Celeritas.Reagan, R. B., & Rico, D. F. (2010). Lean and agile acquisition and systems engineering: A paradigm whose time has come. DoD AT&L Magazine, 39(6).

Economic View

Decentralization

Fast Feedback

Control Cadence& Small Batches

Manage Queues/Exploit Variability

WIP Constraints& Kanban

Flow PrinciplesAgile Values

CustomerCollaboration

EmpoweredTeams

IterativeDelivery

Respondingto Change

Lean Pillars

Respectfor People

ContinuousImprovement

Customer Value

Relationships

Customer Pull

Continuous Flow

Perfection

Value Stream

Lean Principles Customer relationships, satisfaction, trust, and loyalty Team authority, empowerment, and resources Team identification, cohesion, and communication

Lean & Agile Practices

Product vision, mission, needs, and capabilities Product scope, constraints, and business value Product objectives, specifications, and performance As is policies, processes, procedures, and instructions To be business processes, flowcharts, and swim lanes Initial workflow analysis, metrication, and optimization Batch size, work in process, and artifact size constraints Cadence, queue size, buffers, slack, and bottlenecks Workflow, test, integration, and deployment automation Roadmaps, releases, iterations, and product priorities Epics, themes, feature sets, features, and user stories Product demonstrations, feedback, and new backlogs Refactor, test driven design, and continuous integration Standups, retrospectives, and process improvements Organization, project, and process adaptability/flexibility

Models of AGILE DEVELOPMENT

5

Agile methods spunoff flexible manufacturing 1990s Extreme Programming (XP) swept the globe by 2002 Today, over 90% of IT projects use Scrum/XP hybrid

Use Cases

Domain Model

Object Oriented

Iterative Dev.

Risk Planning

Info. Radiators

Planning Poker

Product Backlog

Sprint Backlog

2-4 Week Spring

Daily Standup

Sprint Demo

Feasibility

Business Study

Func. Iteration

Design Iteration

Implementation

Testing

Domain Model

Feature List

Object Oriented

Iterative Dev.

Code Inspection

Testing

Release Plans

User Stories

Pair Programmer

Iterative Dev.

Test First Dev.

Onsite Customer

Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Stapleton, J. (1997). DSDM: A framework for business centered development. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley.Palmer, S. R., & Felsing, J. M. (2002). A practical guide to feature driven development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

CRYSTAL METHODS- 1991 -

SCRUM- 1993 -

DSDM- 1993 -

FDD- 1997 -

XP- 1998 -

Reflection W/S Retrospective Quality Control Quality Control Continuous Del.

Basic SCRUM Framework

Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Created by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993 Product backlog comprised of prioritized features Iterative sprint-to-sprint, adaptive & emergent model

6

Models of AGILE PROJECT MGT.

7

Dozens of Agile project management models emerged Many stem from principles of Extreme Programming Vision, releases, & iterative development common

Prioritization

Feasibility

Planning

Tracking

Reporting

Review

Visionate

Speculate

Innovate

Re-Evaluate

Disseminate

Terminate

Scoping

Planning

Feasibility

Cyclical Dev.

Checkpoint

Review

Envision

Speculate

Explore

Iterate

Launch

Close

Vision

Roadmap

Release Plan

Sprint Plan

Daily Scrum

Retrospective

Thomsett, R. (2002). Radical project management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.DeCarlo, D. (2004). Extreme project management: Using leadership, principles, and tools to deliver value in the face of volatility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Wysocki, R.F. (2010). Adaptive project framework: Managing complexity in the face of uncertainty. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Highsmith, J. A. (2010). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.

RADICAL- 2002 -

EXTREME- 2004 -

ADAPTIVE- 2010 -

AGILE- 2010-

SIMPLIFIED APM- 2011 -

Layton, M. C., & Maurer, R. (2011). Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.

Created by Mark Layton at PlatinumEdge in 2012 Mix of new product development, XP, and Scrum Simplified codification of XP and Scrum hybrid

8

Simplified AGILE PROJECT MGT F/W

9

Numerous models of agile portfolio mgt. emerging Based on lean-kanban, release planning, and Scrum Include organization, program, & project management

Schwaber, K. (2007). The enterprise and scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Thompson, K. (2013). cPrime’s R.A.G.E. is unleashed: Agile leaders rejoice! Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://www.cprime.com/tag/agile-governance

ESCRUM- 2007 -

SAFE- 2007 -

LESS- 2007 -

DAD- 2012 -

RAGE- 2013 -

Product Mgt

Program Mgt

Project Mgt

Process Mgt

Business Mgt

Market Mgt

Strategic Mgt

Portfolio Mgt

Program Mgt

Team Mgt

Quality Mgt

Delivery Mgt

Business Mgt

Portfolio Mgt

Product Mgt

Area Mgt

Sprint Mgt

Release Mgt

Business Mgt

Portfolio Mgt

Inception

Construction

Iterations

Transition

Business

Governance

Portfolio

Program

Project

Delivery

Models of AGILE ENTERPRISE MGT.

Enterprise Scrum (ESCRUM)

Schwaber, K. (2007). The enterprise and scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.

Created by Ken Schwaber of Scrum Alliance in 2007 Application of Scrum at any place in the enterprise Basic Scrum with extensive backlog grooming

10

Scaled Agile Framework (SAFE) Created by Dean Leffingwell of Rally in 2007 Knowledge to scale agile practices to enterprise Hybrid of Kanban, XP release planning, and Scrum

11Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Large Scale Scrum (LESS) Created by Craig Larman of Valtech in 2008 Scrum for larger projects of 500 to 1,500 people Model to nest product owners, backlogs, and teams

12Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

ProductOwner

ProductBacklog

AreaProductOwner

AreaProductBacklog

Daily Scrum15 minutes

Product Backlog Refinement5 - 10% of Sprint

2 - 4 Week Sprint

1 DayFeature Team +Scrum Master

Sprint Planning II2 - 4 hours

SprintPlanning I2 - 4 hours

Potentially ShippableProduct Increment

SprintReview

JointSprint

Review

Sprint Retrospective

SprintBacklog

Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) Created by Scott Ambler of IBM in 2012 People, learning-centric hybrid agile IT delivery Scrum mapping to a model-driven RUP framework

13Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Recipes for Agile Governance (RAGE) Created by Kevin Thompson of cPrime in 2013 Agile governance model for large Scrum projects Traditional-agile hybrid of portfolio-project planning

14Thompson, K. (2013). cPrime’s R.A.G.E. is unleashed: Agile leaders rejoice! Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://www.cprime.com/tag/agile-governance

Factor eScrum SAFe LeSS DaD RAGESimple

Well-Defined Web Portal

Books Measurable

Results Training & Cert

Consultants Tools

Popularity International Fortune 500 Government Lean-Kanban

Agile Enterprise F/W COMPARISON Numerous lean-agile enterprise frameworks emerging eScrum & LeSS were 1st (but SAFe & DaD dominate) SAFe is the most widely-used (with ample resources)

15Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) comparison. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com/safe-comparison.xls

Agile Enterprise F/W ADOPTION Lean-agile enterprise framework adopt stats emerging Numerous lean-agile frameworks now coming to light SAFe is most widely-adopted “formalized” framework

16

Holler, R. (2015). Ninth annual state of agile survey: State of agile development. Atlanta, GA: VersionOne.

SAFe REVISITED Proven, public well-defined F/W for scaling Lean-Agile Synchronizes alignment, collaboration, and deliveries Quality, execution, alignment, & transparency focus

17Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved June 2, 2014 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com

Portfolio

Team

Program

SAFe—Scaling at PORTFOLIO Level Vision, central strategy, and decentralized control Investment themes, Kanban, and objective metrics Value delivery via epics, streams, and release trains

18Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

AGILE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT● Decentralized decision making● Demand-based continuous flow● Lightweight epic business cases● Decentralized rolling wave planning● Objective measures & milestones● Agile estimating and planning

Strategy InvestmentFunding

Governance ProgramManagement

SAFe—Scaling at PROGRAM Level Product and release management team-of-team Common mission, backlog, estimates, and sprints Value delivery via program-level epics and features

19Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

AGILE RELEASE TRAINS● Driven by vision and roadmap● Lean, economic prioritization● Frequent, quality deliveries● Fast customer feedback● Fixed, reliable cadence● Regular inspect & adapt CI

Alignment Collaboration

Synchronization ValueDelivery

SAFe—Scaling at TEAM Level Empowered, self-organizing cross-functional teams Hybrid of Scrum PM & XP technical best practices Value delivery via empowerment, quality, and CI

20Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

AGILE CODE QUALITY● Pair development● Emergent design● Test-first● Refactoring● Continuous integration● Collective ownership

ProductQuality

CustomerSatisfaction

Predictability Speed

21Leffingwell, D. (2015). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved June 12, 2015 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com

SAFe METRICS

SAFe CASE STUDIES Most U.S. Fortune 500 companies adopting SAFe Goal to integrate enterprise, portfolios, and systems Capital One going through end-to-end SAFe adoption

22

John Deere Spotify Comcast• Agricultural automation

• 800 developers on 80 teams

• Rolled out SAFe in one year

• Transitioned to open spaces

• Field issue resolution up 42%

• Quality improvement up 50%

• Warranty expense down 50%

• Time to production down 20%

• Time to market down 20%

• Job engagement up 10%

• Television cable/DVR boxes

• Embedded & server-side

• 150 developers on 15 teams

• Cycle time - 12 to 4 months

• Support 11 million+ DVRs

• Design features vs. layers

• Releases delivered on-time

• 100% capabilities delivered

• 95% requirements delivered

• Fully automated sprint tests

• GUI-based point of sale sys

• Switched from CMMI to SAFe

• 120 developers on 12 teams

• QA to new feature focus

• Used Rally adoption model

• 10% productivity improvement

• 10% cost of quality reduction

• 200% improved defect density

• Production defects down 50%

• Value vs. compliance focus

Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) case studies. Denver, CO: Leffingwell, LLC.Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) benefits. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-benefits.txt

SAFe BENEFITS

23Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) case studies. Denver, CO: Leffingwell, LLC.Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) benefits. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-benefits.txt

Cycle time and quality are most notable improvement Productivity on par with Scrum at 10X above normal Data shows SAFe scales to teams of 1,000+ people

Benefit Nokia SEI Telstra BMCTrade

StationDiscount

TireValpak Mitchell

John Deere

Spotify Comcast Average

App Maps Trading DW IT Trading Retail Market Insurance Agricult. Cable PoS

Weeks 95.3 2 52 52 52 52 51

People 520 400 75 300 100 90 300 800 150 120 286

Teams 66 30 9 10 10 9 60 80 15 12 30

Satis 25% 29% 15% 23%

Costs 50% 10% 30%

Product 2000% 25% 10% 678%

Quality 95% 44% 50% 50% 60%

Cycle 600% 600% 300% 50% 300% 370%

ROI 2500% 200% 1350%

Morale 43% 63% 10% 39%

SAFe SUMMARY Lean-agile frameworks & tools emerging in droves Focus on scaling agility to enterprises & portfolios SAFe emerging as the clear international leader

24Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: For Scaling with SAFe, DaD, LeSS, RAGE, ScrumPLoP, Enterprise Scrum, etc. Retrieved March 28, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com

SAFe is extremely well-defined in books and InternetSAFe has ample training, certification, consulting, etc.SAFe leads to increased productivity and qualitySAFe is scalable to teams of up to 1,000+ developersSAFe is preferred agile approach of Global 500 firmsSAFe is agile choice for public sector IT acquisitionsSAFe cases and performance data rapidly emerging

Key Agile SCALING POINTERS One must think and act small to accomplish big things Slow down to speed up, speed up ‘til wheels come off Scaling up lowers productivity, quality, & business value

25Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: For Scaling with SAFe, DaD, LeSS, RAGE, ScrumPLoP, Enterprise Scrum, etc. Retrieved March 28, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com

EMPOWER WORKFORCE - Allow workers to help establish enterprise business goals and objectives.

ALIGN BUSINESS VALUE - Align and focus agile teams on delivering business value to the enterprise.

PERFORM VISIONING - Frequently communicate portfolio, project, and team vision on continuous basis.

REDUCE SIZE - Reduce sizes of agile portfolios, acquisitions, products, programs, projects, and teams.

ACT SMALL - Get large agile teams to act, behave, collaborate, communicate, and perform like small ones.

BE SMALL - Get small projects to act, behave, and collaborate like small ones instead of trying to act larger.

ACT COLLOCATED - Get virtual distributed teams to act, behave, communicate and perform like collocated ones.

USE SMALL ACQUISITION BATCHES - Organize suppliers to rapidly deliver new capabilities and quickly reprioritize.

USE LEAN-AGILE CONTRACTS - Use collaborative contracts to share responsibility instead of adversarial legal ones.

USE ENTERPRISE AUTOMATION - Automate everything with Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, & DevOps.

Dave’s PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES

26

SoftwareQuality

Mgt.

TechnicalProject

Mgt.

SoftwareDevelopment

Methods

OrganizationChange

SystemsEngineering

CostEstimating

GovernmentContracting

GovernmentAcquisitions

LeanKanban

Big Data,Cloud, NoSQL

WorkflowAutomation

Metrics,Models, & SPC

SixSigma

BPR, IDEF0,& DoDAF

DoD 5000,TRA, & SRA

PSP, TSP, &Code Reviews

CMMI &ISO 9001

InnovationManagement

Statistics, CFA,EFA, & SEM

ResearchMethods

EvolutionaryDesign

Valuation — Cost-Benefit Analysis, B/CR, ROI, NPV, BEP, Real Options, etc.

Lean-Agile — Scrum, SAFe, Continuous Integration & Delivery, DevOps, etc.

STRENGTHS – Data Mining Gathering & Reporting Performance Data Strategic Planning Executive & Manage-ment Briefs Brownbags & Webinars White Papers Tiger-Teams Short-Fuse Tasking Audits & Reviews Etc.

● Action-oriented. Do first (talk about it later).● Data-mining/analysis. Collect facts (then report findings).● Simplification. Communicating complex ideas (in simple terms).● Git-r-done. Prefer short, high-priority tasks (vs. long bureaucratic projects).● Team player. Consensus-oriented collaboration (vs. top-down autocratic control).

PMP, CSEP,ACP, CSM,

& SAFE

32 YEARSIN IT

INDUSTRY

Books on ROI of SW METHODS Guides to software methods for business leaders Communicates the business value of IT approaches Rosetta stones to unlocking ROI of software methods

http://davidfrico.com/agile-book.htm (Description) http://davidfrico.com/roi-book.htm (Description)

27

Backup Slides

Suhy, S. (2014). Has the U.S. government moved to agile without telling anyone? Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://agileingov.comPorter, M. E., & Schwab, K. (2008). The global competitiveness report: 2008 to 2009. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. 29

U.S. gov’t agile jobs grew by 13,000% from 2006-2013 Adoption is higher in U.S. DoD than Civilian Agencies GDP of countries with high adoption rates is greater

High

Low

Low HighAGILITY

CO

MP

ET

ITIV

EN

ES

S

GOVERNMENT AGILE JOB GROWTH

PE

RC

EN

TAG

E

13,000%

02006 2013YEARS

GOVERNMENT COMPETITIVENESS

Agile for PUBLIC SECTOR

Agile for SECURITY ENGINEERING Microsoft created software security life cycle in 2002 Waterfall approach tailored for Scrum sprints in 2009 Uses security req, threat modeling & security testing

30

Microsoft. (2011). Security development lifecycle: SDL Process Guidance (Version 5.1). Redmond, WA: Author.Microsoft. (2010). Security development lifecycle: Simplified implementation of the microsoft SDL. Redmond, WA: Author.Microsoft. (2009). Security development lifecycle: Security development lifecycle for agile development (Version 1.0). Redmond, WA: Author.Bidstrup, E., & Kowalczyk, E. C. (2005). Security development lifecycle. Changing the software development process to build in security from the start. Security Summit West.

SEE DETAILED - SECURITY LIFE CYCLE STEPShttp://davidfrico.com/agile-security-lifecycle.txt

Agile for EMBEDDED SYSTEMS 1st-generation systems used hardwired logic 2nd-generation systems used PROMS & FPGAs 3rd-generation systems use APP. SW & COTS HW

31Pries, K. H., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Scrum project management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Pries, K. H., & Quigley, J. M. (2009). Project management of complex and embedded systems. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications.Thomke, S. (2003). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

● Short Lead● Least Cost● Lowest Risk● 90% Software● COTS Hardware● Early, Iterative Dev.● Continuous V&V

● Moderate Lead● Moderate Cost● Moderate Risk● 50% Hardware● COTS Components● Midpoint Testing● “Some” Early V&V

● Long Lead● Highest Cost● Highest Risk● 90% Hardware● Custom Hardware● Linear, Staged Dev.● Late Big-Bang I&T

AGILE“Software Model”- MOST FLEXIBLE -

NEO-TRADITIONAL“FPGA Model”

- MALLEABLE -

TRADITIONAL“Hardwired Model”

- LEAST FLEXIBLE -

GOAL – SHIFT FROM LATE HARDWARE TO EARLIER SOFTWARE SOLUTION

RISKEmbeddedSystemsMore HWThan SW

STOPCompeting

With HW

STARTCompeting

With SW

Iterat

ions

, Int

egra

tion

s, &

Val

idat

ions

SAFe rapidly evolving & adapting to market needs A “draft” version was made for “systems engineering” SoS, Lean, Kanban, and continuous flow system focus

32Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved April 8, 2015 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com

Agile for SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

SoS

System

Sub-Sys

33Kovacs, K. (2015). Comparison of nosql databases. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://kkovacs.euSahai, S. (2013). Nosql database comparison chart. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://www.infoivy.comDB-Engines (2014). System properties comparison of nosql databases. Retrieved on January 9, 2015, from http://db-engines.com

Rank Database Year Creator Firm Goal Model Lang I/F Focus Example User Rate KPro

2007 Steve Francia

10gen Gener-ality

Document C++ BSON Large-scale Web Apps

CRM Expedia 45% 48

2008 Avinash Lakshman

Facebook Relia-bility

Wide Column

Java CQL Fault-tolerant Data Stores

Mission Critical Data

iTunes 20% 15

2009 Salvatore Sanfilippo

Pivotal Speed Key Value C Binary Real-time Messaging

Instant Messaging

Twitter 20% 14

2007 Mike Carafella

Powerset Scale Wide Column

Java REST Petabyte-size Data Stores

Image Repository

Ebay 10% 8

2004 Shay Banon

Compass Search Document Java REST Full-text Search

Information Portals

Wiki-media 5% 7

Real-time, Distributed, Multi-tenant, Document-based, Schema-free, Persistence, Availability, etc.

8

Redis10

HBase14

Rapid-prototyping, Queries, Indexes, Replication, Availability, Load-balancing, Auto-Sharding, etc.

Distributed, Scalable, Performance, Durable, Caching, Operations, Transactions, Consistency

Real-time, Memory-cached, Performance, Persistence, Replication, Data structures, Age-off, etc.

Scalable, Performance, Data-replication, Flexible, Consistency, Auto-sharding, Metrics, etc.

16Elastic Search

MongoDB5

Cassandra

3 - $10M•Gen App•Reliable•Low Cplx

2 - $100M•Schema•Dist P2P•Med Cplx

1 - $1B•Limited•Sin PoF•High Cplx

Agile Scaling w/CLOUD COMPUTING 1st-generation systems used HPCs & Hadoop 2nd-generation systems used COTS HW & P2P 3rd-generation systems use APP. SW & COTS HW

AWS is most popular cloud computing platform Scalable service with end-to-end security & privacy AWS is compliant & certified to 30+ indiv. S&P stds.

34Barr, J. (2014). AWS achieves DoD provisional authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://aws.amazon.comDignan, L. (2014). Amazon web services lands DoD security authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.zdnet.comAmazon.com (2015). AWS govcloud earns DoD CSM Levsl 3-5 provisional authorization. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://aws.amazon.com

Analytics DatabaseSSAE

CrossService

Compute &NetworkingS

OC

ApplicationServices

Deployment &Management

Storage &Content Del.

DoD CSM DIACAP FedRAMP FIPSCOBIT CSAAICPA

FISMA

GLBAHITECHS

AS

ITAR ISO/IEC ISAE HIPAANIST MPAAPCI

NoSQL Sols• MongoDB• Cassandra• HBase

Agile Scaling w/AMAZON WEB SVCS

Created by Jez Humble of ThoughtWorks in 2011 Includes CM, build, testing, integration, release, etc. Goal is one-touch automation of deployment pipeline

35Humble, J., & Farley, D. (2011). Continuous delivery. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Duvall, P., Matyas, S., & Glover, A. (2006). Continuous integration. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Ohara, D. (2012). Continuous delivery and the world of devops. San Francisco, CA: GigaOM Pro.

CoQ

• 80% MS Tst• 8/10 No Val• $24B in 90s• Rep by CD• Not Add MLK

Agile Scaling w/CONTINUOUS DELIVERY

Assembla went from 2 to 45 releases every month 15K Google developers run 120 million tests per day 30K+ Amazon developers deliver 8,600 releases a day

36Singleton, A. (2014). Unblock: A guide to the new continuous agile. Needham, MA: Assembla, Inc.

62x FasterU.S. DoD

IT Project

3,645x FasterU.S. DoD

IT Project

Agile Scaling w/DEVOPS

37

Numerous theories of agile leadership have emerged Many have to do with delegation and empowerment Leaders have major roles in visioning and enabling

AGILE- 2005 -

EMPLOYEE- 2009 -

RADICAL- 2010 -

LEAN- 2010 -

LEADERSHIP 3.0- 2011 -

Organic Teams

Guiding Vision

Transparency

Light Touch

Simple Rules

Improvement

Autonomy

Alignment

Transparency

Purpose

Mastery

Improvement

Self Org. Teams

Communication

Transparency

Iterative Value

Delight Clients

Improvement

Talented Teams

Alignment

Systems View

Reliability

Excellence

Improvement

Empowerment

Alignment

Motivation

Scaling

Competency

Improvement

Augustine, S. (2005). Managing agile projects. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Denning, S. (2010). The leader’s guide to radical management: Reinventing the workplace for the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Poppendieck, M, & Poppendieck, T. (2010). Leading lean software development: Results are not the point. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Appelo, J. (2011). Management 3.0: Leading agile developers and developing agile leaders. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Models of AGILE LEADERSHIP

TO SELL IS HUMAN

Reduce Your Power Take Their Perspective Use Strategic Mimicry

Use Interrogative Self-Talk Opt. Positivity Ratios Offer Explanatory Style

Find the Right Problem Find Your Frames Find an Easy Path

ATTUNEMENT

BUOYANCY

CLARITY

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. New York, NY: Random House.Patterson, K., et al. (2008). Influencer: The power to change anything: New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.Pink, D. H. (2012). To sell is human: The surprising truth about moving others. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. New York, NY: Random House.

Change, no matter how small or large, is difficult Smaller focused changes help to cross the chasm Simplifying, motivating, and validation key factors

38

SWITCH

Follow the bright spots Script the critical moves Point to the destination

Find the feeling Shrink the change Grow your people

Tweak the environment Build habits Rally the herd

DIRECT THE RIDER

MOTIVATE ELEPHANT

SHAPE PATH

INFLUENCER

Create new experiences Create new motives

Perfect complex skills Build emotional skills

Recruit public figures Recruit influential leaders

Utilize teamwork Power of social capital

Use incentives wisely Use punishment sparingly

Make it easy Make it unavoidable

MAKE IT DESIRABLE

SURPASS YOUR LIMITS

USE PEER PRESSURE

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

DESIGN REWARDS

CHANGE ENVIRONMENT

DRIVEPURPOSE

AUTONOMY

MASTERY

Purpose-profit equality Business& societal benefit Share control of profits Delegate implementation Culture & goal alignment Remake society-globe

Accountable to someone Self-select work tasks Self-directed work tasks Self-selected timelines Self-selected teams Self-selected implement.

Experiment & innovate Align tasks to abilities Continuously improve Learning over profits Create challenging tasks Set high expectations

DECISIVECOMMON ERRORS

Narrow framing Confirmation bias Short term emotion Over confidence

WIDEN OPTIONS Avoid a narrow frame Multi-track Find out who solved it

TEST ASSUMPTIONS Consider the opposite Zoom out & zoom in Ooch

ATTAIN DISTANCE Overcome emotion Gather & shift perspective Self-directed work tasks

PREPARE TO BE WRONG Bookend the future Set a tripwire Trust the process

Models of AGILE ORG. CHANGE

Rico, D. F. (2011). The necessity of new contract models for agile project management. Fairfax, VA: Gantthead.Com.Rico, D. F. (2013). Agile vs. traditional contract manifesto. Retrieved March 28, 2013 from http://www.davidfrico.com 39

Dynamic Value Performance Based Target Cost Optional Scope Collaborative

Business & Mission Value OVER Scope, Processes, & Deliverables

Personal Interactions OVER Contract, Auditor, & Legal Interactions

Conversations and Consensus OVER Contract Negotiations & Control

Collaboration & Co-Dependency OVER Methodology & Adversarialism

Exploration, Evolution, & Emergence OVER Forecasting & Control

Early Continuous Quality Solutions OVER Late, Long-Term Deliveries

Entrepreneurialism & Openness OVER Compliance & Self-Interest

Customer Satisfaction and Quality OVER Policies & Governance

Communication, cooperation, and interaction key Shared responsibility vs. blame and adversarialism Needs greater focus on collaboration vs. legal terms

Models of AGILE CONTRACTING

Principles of AGILE CONTRACTING Manage agile contracts like your personal checkbook Optimize value of dollars, i.e., get most bang for buck Don’t burden taxpayers with billion dollar acquisitions

40Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: Principles for Transforming U.S. DoD Acquisition & Systems Engineering Practices. Retrieved March, 2015 from http://davidfrico.com

FEWER - Fewer high-priority acquisition priorities and needs (vs. kitchen-sink way of buying everything). SMALLER - Smaller low-cost single-mission throwaway acquisitions (vs. century-long, trillion-dollar systems). MICRO TIMELINES - Hyper fast acquisition lifecycles measured in months and years (vs. decades and centuries). EMERGENT DESIGN - Micro-thin capability-based designs (vs. wasteful heavyweight century-long architectures). FLATTER - Flatter gov’t agencies, acquisition, organizations & program offices (vs. top-heavy oversight teams). COLLABORATIVE - Smaller flatter cross-functional buyer-supplier teams (vs. adversarial legalistic contracting). CROWDSOURCED - Global bottom-up planning, decisions, funding, risk-sharing & designs (vs. local groupthink). RESULTS BASED - Blackbox, outcome, and product-oriented acquisitions (vs. whitebox, work-in-process focus). MAXIMIZE FLOW - Low-cost intensive automated processes (vs. human-intensive decisions and governance). COMMERCIALIZE - Maximize use of commercial products and services (vs. customized in-sourced solutions). OUTSOURCED DATA - Use commercial open source data & analytics (vs. internal collection, analysis, & reports).